Heidegger, Being & Ontotheology (Mary-Jane Rubenstein)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- Professor Mary-Jane Rubenstein discusses the thought of Martin Heidegger in a lecture called "One Way Up Through The Way Back Into The Out of Ontotheology". The talk was given at Wesleyan University in 2011. Mary-Jane Rubenstein's website can be found here: www.maryjaneru...
And Mary-Jane Rubenstein's publications can be found here: mrubenstein.fa...
#philosophy #heidegger
Excellent presentation. Especially the linkage between Nietzsche and Heidegger is brilliant
Laughter during a lecture on Heidegger.🤯😂
I so absolutely love this talk. I have listened to it about 20 times, and get more out of it each time.
I’ve sat through many hours of Heidegger conferences lectures and beside maybe Dreyfus (and of course my old advisor haha) this is maybe my favorite one
Brilliant analysis. Love the "Heideverse"!
Thank you for re-uploading this!
I was exposed to Werner Erhard Seminar Training est in 1983 in India, and since then have read up Heidegger and how closely the ongoing Landmark training programs draw close parallel to the amazing work of Heidegger.
This lecture blew my mind - Mary Jane is brilliant and I have been listening to this again and again and again
Thanks for uploading Heidegger even though he isn’t one of your personal interests!
That was remarkably useful and fun. Great work!
I credit this lecture by Professor Rubenstein with sparking my interest with academic philosophy from a mild curiosity to a real lifelong pursuit. Thank you for uploading this.
The internet can be such a great thing!
Why don't you read that, no and go and get my degree. You can order it on Amazon? I'm homeless now, put it on the counter when I reach for my ID to carry it on the airplane, why not. Some serious social research. They want it back, and I have to go back to school to read it again and I could completely deconstruct and rewrite it, now.
Cutest Dasein in the history of Zeit right here
This was amazing. What a wit, and as someone still trying to bash my way into the "Heideggerverse" I felt every word - and better yet, mostly understood it.
"For us, the character of the conversation with the history of thinking is no longer Aufhebung (elevation), but the step back.
Elevation leads to the heightening and gathering area of truth posited as absolute, truth in the sense of the completely developed certainty of self-knowing knowledge.
The step back points to the realm which until now has been skipped over, and from which the essence of truth becomes first of all worthy of thought." --Joan Stambaugh trans. (OC)
Regarding the question at around 1:00:00, if anything it's this "standing back" that is absent in modern day activism, on both the left and far right, causing vast swathes of people to be emotionally triggered by the slick, evocative, targeted propaganda of various hostile entities, into self defeating but self gratifying behaviours.
Thx. M.J where are You!!? It s a long time since this one. Hope to see / hear about your newest Project. Cheers🍻
i love when she says cereal cereal cereal, i have no idea what cereal is. all im her speaker voice. than in her quieter not speaker voice says under her breath”now i do”. i dont know why precisely it sticks out to me, but it sure does speak to me
An English translation of "THE ONTO-THEO-LOGICAL CONSTITUTION OF METAPHYSICS" is available here: static1.squarespace.com/static/5657eb54e4b022a250fc2de4/t/566f9dfa1c12100c11456ac3/1450155514846/1969_Heidegger_Identity+and+Difference.pdf
A very animated lecture, much enjoyed.
The teacher Yuri Benzmenov warned us about.
Very interesting.heidegger is a difficult philosopher for those who are still at the stage of metaphysic and plato philisophy.we understand his point of view of being if we know the philosophy of existensialism
Heidegger scholar Michael Millerman draws upon recent translations (of lectures late twenties, early thirties) that emphasize a Heidegger "calling" his students (and implicitly readers by the generations)--as Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, called his hearers-- to DECIDE: either be "authentic" or follow the crowd, the masses. I've not yet read these translations, except for the Nietzsche lectures, where Heidegger talks about RAPTURE (but not in an "evangelical" sense!). So, Heidegger indeed seems to invite those "with ears to hear" to a kind of "inner circle," but not that of orthodox faith. Not that of "onto-theology" or "metaphysics." The most fascinating part of this talk, which I MUST listen to again!, was the part about being on the inside, as it were, of this NEW SPHERE of human existence which, for lack of a better word, Heidegger terms Dasein.
I used the "Good Shepherd" analogy because Mary-Jane mentioned that Heidegger speaks of Dasein as the "shepherd of Being." No?
I'm in love with Mary Jane
what is is, are?
When the encounter of the human mind with nature is brokered by reason, nature prevails. Reason mightily struggles with itself to understand nature through its laws. If you work with glass, you must understand its properties: melting point, viscosity, etc.; but the glass doesn't need to understand you. Humility sets the tone of the encounter.
When reason is absent in such encounters, the unreasonable mind replaces the properties of nature as the guide to action by the whims of the mind. Hubris sets the tone for the encounter.
Heidegger talks about the encounter of a human mind with another human mind, where hubris rather than humility sets the tone.
This is like slam poetry but 'Heideggery'.
Absolutely hilarious!
There is a connection I learned some time ago between Beatniks and the general reception of Heidegger's thought in America, so perhaps there is no coincidence!
"Rarity, exteriority, accumulation"
Why do they laugh when she says the abbreviations wb and oc at min 4:40?
Interesting topic....
Rubinstein has such lovely and ebulient christ like aureola radiating attitufe from herself :) ☺️
There is something about reading texts about someone talking about themselves and relating the other-self to one's self and coming out the other end with an interpretation that can be understood as an approximation while writing about myself in the moment. Such dramatic, "self contained" performances bring me to l'art pour l'art, perhaps philosophy for philosophy?
No-it’s just philosophy
@@jsuisdetrop ...
when you subjectivize dasein into a performance art piece, something is bound to get lost in translation.
but the problem is written into the production: if you've wrestled with being and time and a few other heidegger lectures, then you have to appreciate how anything less than a full engagement with the texts is meaningless.
interesting but feels more like a sitcom
It's a question of hierarchies, priorities and preferences: why contemplate what 'is' is, when it it is so much more rewarding to contemplate what 'Mary-Jane' is.
In this case any sane person would take being as a given. She's so charming!
I don’t think H would refute the fact that “Being as a given”, rather what he spent all of his life doing is essentially trying to disclose precisely the structure of this givenness
she's good.
An English translation. of "GETTING TO THE BOTTOM OF METAPHYSICS (1949)" is available here: wagner.edu/psychology/files/2013/01/Heidegger-What-Is-Metaphysics-Translation-GROTH.pdf
into the Heidegger once more... DASEIN!!!
there isn’t great complexity here but what is is shut out in the personal theatre of it all.
😍
Does she actually try to low-key imply that if one cannot dance before a Being of which a greater being cannot be thought, then God is not a Being of which a greater being cannot be thought? Does she imply that God cannot be a causa sui? At least it looks like she implies that Aquinas was no mystic. First of all, I think that one can sing and dance before a Being of which a greater being cannot be thought, in the sense, that being the highest Being is something worthy of praise, but also in the sense that one can sing and dance before anything, no matter how one refers to or characterises that thing. And even if one agress with her in thinking that being the highest being is actually not that impressive (...), that does still not imply that God is not the highest being. Isn't it interesting that the lady who made up a new religion says that Aquinas was a bad theologian?
Can you more elaborate please. These topic on Being very interesting.
She makes fun of Theologians who characterize God as the highest being above which no greater being can be thought and implies that such a conception of God is a cold and soulless conception of God. I kinda doubt that it is, but even if she is right about that (maybe it is subjective), from that judgment (of taste?) about the judgement that God is the highest being, it does not follow that God is not the highest being. Her argument seems like: "I don't like it personally, so therefore it cannot be true".
"Mary-Jane" and "Rubinstein" don't often go together. Odd.
too much fun not enough information
Hottie bo bottie.
I don't know why people find Heidegger difficult
Heidegger lässt sich in Eure Sprache schlicht nicht übersetzen. Keine Ahnung, ob ihr Ihn verstehen könnt, ich habe da Zweifel.
That some overblown, self referential conservatism espoused in mystical and flowery language is met with such enthusiasm, yet Marx had already provided a much greater analysis of even the claims that are discernibly evident in Heidegger. And Marx is met with a slough of confusion, derision and misrepresentation. Relegated to a false cliche, whilst Heidegger is improperly elevated to a level of cohesion concerning that which is metaphysical (Age of the World Picture) and it's oscillating referents between the person (Being and Time) and the technical historicity of the humans coming to be (the question concerning technology; Letter on Humanism).
All this is to simultaneously overlook far more profound insights from Marx and, what's the same, to pretend to disregard his own standing in a Germany facing the dissolution of the old conservative values and already existent transformation into the ultimate liquidator of the aforementioned: capitalism.
Heidegger was nothing but a charlatan and his supposed most profound insights are to be found already and more clearly exposited in Marx Capital Vol 1 Chpter 15 on the transition to mass scale industry and machinery.
Marx was just a jealous little boy who wanted to get back at the rich kids he grew up with. He knew he couldn't do it through business so he used the ignorance of the masses to gain the power and wealth he sought as a child. Communism/Marxism has failed and capitalism has prevailed. Accept it:)
@@mycdoc settle down you moralist. No one writes three volumes assessing the entire history of economic development out of spite. That sounds like what someone who couldn't bring themselves to carefully analyze their conditions would do...like Heidegger.
@@henryberrylowry9512 Haha. You don't understand psychology very well, do you? Never underestimate what someone will do out of spite. Especially when begins at childhood and involves the money, status, end ego. Marx was simply created a way to make himself powerful that the system he grew up in wouldn't allow. And his theories have failed and caused misery and poverty for countless millions of people. And his legacy, namely Vladimir Putin, is still creating misery and destruction around the world. Communism/Marxism has lost, accept it.
@@mycdoc move the goal post around a little more without reading the requisite material.
im very limited on marx view so feel free to correcr me if im wrong but their views focus on different things. hiedeggar doesnt gave to be trash just because Marx is good or vise versa. again from my limited understanding marx focuses on the orientation of a collective of people and im guessing a idea of what people are but in terms of a view looking at other people and not from within himself. Hiedeggars importance is the categorization of the actual human experience, which in turn brings clarity to the actual foundations of what being a human being is. Hiedeggar doesnt tell us what to think or whats good or bad for us. just that We are beings and the best thing we can do to be is be. Your being can being a marxist loving person. there is no need to reject another philosophy just because it is not your favorite. Even if my idea of marxism is wrong, the would be no reason for hiedeggar to write what he has if marx already did it.
@3:25 Heiddeger created his own closed system before Apple computers did.😂
Heidegger might be the most overvalued philosopher. I am not saying his view is wrong, but instead is quite useless. Human with the body in the physical realm and the mind in a concept realm, what we need philosophy for? We need a philosophy to help us build a stable mind realm with a stable foundation, for both individual and collective human society. Historically, metaphysics focuses on building the concept tree in the mind realm, but seemed to lose its touch with the physical realm. However, this boundary between the two realms could never be defined by concepts only. We will never be able to know why we know. The goal is unattainable.
@@o.s.h.4613 I wouldn't say it's meaningless. English probably isn't the OP's first language. But yeah, it's not a good critique of Heidegger's thought and also shows a very basic understanding of what philosophy is.
look at how she carrys her-self and how her words flow and tell me it is “useless”. your missing the point of the lecture by viewing things by a usefulness perspective. We are humans our direct attention towards usefulness is what is brought forth in hiedeggars work.
“Human with the body” is not a great start to a rebuttal, gotta be honest. And the “what you talkin’ ‘bout, Willis” tone of your argument is probably missing it’s mark.
Overrated? Sorry, I disagree. While difficult to read, Being and Time as well as A Question Concerning Technology are philosophical masterpieces. It is just disappointing his politics were so opportunistic.
“It is entirely correct and completely in order to say, 'You can’t do anything with philosophy.' The only mistake is to believe that with this, the judgment concerning philosophy is at an end. For a little epilogue arises in the form of a counterquestion: even if we can’t do anything with it, may not philosophy in the end do something with us, provided that we engage ourselves with it?” (Intro to Metaphysics, 13)
Ew?
Strange that I can follow and understand everything 😂
Natzziger was a bad-ass. Creating a secular god that cannot be named (not an object) but can only be experienced (undisclosed).